Paper Example on U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972

Introduction

The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 is the act responsible for giving the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) the mandate to sue individuals or employers in the federal courts. It acts when there is a reasonable cause to believe employment discrimination existed based on sex, religion, color, race or an individual's place of origin. When the case involves public employment, the matter is referred to the United States Attorney General by the EEOC. The main objective of this act is to prohibit discrimination when employing people based on gender, color, sex, race, and nationality. The perception can also occur in terms of political beliefs, disability, and family status; it aims at protecting the rights of all citizens and ensure they are treated equally (Buckley, 2013). EEOC is also responsible for investigating cases of discrimination against employers who are covered by the law. Discrimination in employment entails hiring, firing, giving promotions, wage transfer and also discrimination in advertising, classification and referring of job applicants. The act also takes affirmative actions in ensuring minorities participate and the presence of a fair number of women in the workplaces.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The legality of EOCC actions

The actions of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act are legal because their primary role is to protect every employee from discriminated according to their race or even nationality. They carry out a fair and accurate assessment of the allegations brought to them by employees and come up with findings. In cases where they find the occurrence of discrimination, they make efforts and settle the charges. While in situations where they cannot resolve the problem, they file a lawsuit to protect the individual's rights and interests of the public. The EEOC considers several factors before proceeding to register a trial such as the strength of evidence, various issues involving the case and the impact that could result from filing the lawsuit (Bourdieu, 2014). They also consider the effects the lawsuit could have on EEOC efforts to curb the instances of discrimination in the workplaces. EEOC also try as much as possible to prevent curb discrimination before it takes place through providing education and technical programs aimed at assisting individuals in the workplaces.

The actions of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 are also legal because the state recognizes it since it is also responsible for providing guidance based on leadership to major federal agencies. The advice provided covers most aspects of the federal government and its connection with the provision of equal employment opportunities programs to individuals seeking employment. EEOC ensures that all the federal agencies and the departments comply with the regulations set by the EEOC (Levine, 2017). It also ensures it provides appropriate advice and assistance relating to complaints based on EEO and in the process evaluating and monitoring the employment programs that are affirmative and develop the proper educational materials. They also provide guidance and assistance to judges appointed to conduct hearings and EEO complaints as well as for deciding appeals from the decisions made.

The court cases that challenged all parts of EEOA

There are several court cases and supreme issues that challenge all parts of EEOC; they question the actions and decisions made by the act. One of the court cases is the Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 582 U.S. ___ (2017) where the victim Antony Perry received a notice from his employer that stated the termination of his employment in United States Census Bureau because of the claims of non-attendance. They came into an agreement which resulted in Perry agreeing being suspended for thirty days and take early retirement. This agreement also required him to dismiss the claims based on the discrimination he had filed against the Bureau early with the EEOC. When he retired, he took his appeal to the MSPB with claims of discrimination, based on age, disability, and race. He was coerced to sign the settlement by the Bureau, and therefore it did not stand in his way. The administrative of MSPB who was the law judge confirmed of Perry's failure to provide evidence of the claims that he was coerced into signing the settlement, the judge also presumed that he retired voluntary and dismissed his case. This was because the MSPB does not appeal the action of volunteering, therefore the board could not find enough evidence to continue with Perry's claims (Bourdieu, 2014).

Chavez v. Credit Nation Auto Sales. This case involved claims made by an employee terminated form her job as a plaintiff's mechanic for being a transgender. She was terminated based on her sexual orientation and how she dressed. Her case was remanded by the court waiting for trial because there existed no enough evidence because they could not come up with a good reason concerning gender biasness as a motivating factor. She filed her claims with the EEOC who them filed a lawsuit to seek relief for the victim of sexual discrimination. The victim's employer made assertions that she was fired for sleeping in her job and was treated equally with others who were laid off for the same reason. Two months before she was terminated the employer had complained that her transgender status made her uneasy and that she could also affect the other coworkers and the business. Therefore, the court dismissed the case due to lack of evidence of the claims made against the employer due to lack of information.

EEOC v. Wyoming case involving age discrimination stated in the Employment Act of 1967 states that it is unlawful an employee to be discriminated against by the employer based on the age between forty and seventy. It can only be exempted if the period is a technical requirement that is bona fide and is a requirement for regular operations of a specific firm or organization. It can also defer if there are other factors apart from age. The case involves a Game and Fish Department supervisor who was retired at the age of fifty-five without his consent. He filed a suit against the employer with the EEOC where he alleged that his rights were violated, EEOC then filed a lawsuit at the court seeking relief and justice for the supervisor (Levine, 2017). The lawsuit was filed against the appellees and several state officials on behalf of the supervisor. The court dismissed because it held that Wyoming's used the Act to regulate the employment relationships with its employers and other officials who enforced the law. In the process, they violated the Tenth Amendment immunity doctrine which dismissed the attempt for the extension of the provisions of labor and wage by the government.

Another part of EEOC challenged by the court the Supreme Court was the Sheet Metal Workers vs. EEOC in the United States. The District Court in 1975 found that a petitioner union and an apprenticeship committee violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and was found guilty. They were charged with discrimination claims against the non-white workers who were the process of being recruited, selected, and trained and being admitted to the union. The petitioners were ordered by the court to put an ending to their discriminating practices against the nonwhites. They achieved this by developing a membership goal of 29% for the nonwhites which was meant to base the nonwhites in the right pool of labor in New York City (Buckley, 2013). The petitioners were also ordered by carrying out the procedures of implementation which were explicitly designed to achieve the goals set by the court based on supervision by an administrator appointed by the court. The petitioners were found guilty of disobeying the orders placed by the court earlier; this resulted in fines being imposed and in the process being set in training on the appropriate employment education. This was aimed at increasing the nonwhite membership in the union and the program. Affirmative action was taken where the court decided that nonwhite membership goal of 29.23% was appropriate and did not violate the constitution or Title VII.

Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC- a ruling was issued by the Supreme Court in a dispute involving church employment. It gave a broader aspect to the religious organizations on issues of hiring and firing employees and clergy's performing religious duties. The case involved a teacher being dismissed at a Lutheran school in Michigan for the claims of performing both secular and religious activities. The teacher claimed that her firing violated laws that protected people with disabilities; she claimed that the religious school went against her rights under the Disability Act in America. The court, however, ruled that the exceptions of the ministry trumped laws of anti-discrimination, it ruled that the religious groups had the rights to choose who was going to preach their beliefs and teach their faith to people. They also had the right to select the people to carry out their missions. Therefore the Supreme Court dismissed the case.

Zipes v. Transworld Airlines was a Supreme Court issue where the TWA appointed a union representing flight attendants. The union filed a lawsuit against TWA for allegations that they practiced sex discrimination which violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The discrimination occurred where the female flight attendants who gave birth including their male counterparts were allowed to continue flying (Levine, 2017). TWA was denied by the District Court the motion aimed at excluding all those members who failed to file their charges with the EEOC within a time frame specified. The court, later on, affirmed the grant of giving the summary of the judgment and came into conclusion that the union claims had no adequate evidence to file the complaints against TWA and also take actions. The court dismissed the case that the union filed with EEOC because they did not have reliable and enough evidence to accuse them of sexual discrimination.

The contribution of EEOA towards a greater social equality

The goals set by EEOC contribute to more significant social equity as it results in recognition of the essence of equity and considerable development agencies recognize the need for development equity. The ability to bring equality in employment is a significant improvement in people's lives because they can secure employment opportunities in many workplaces because they are protected. They are not discriminated against color, age, gender, and their nationality because they can use law file a lawsuit and have their rights respected. They have promoted development because with the upcoming issues of unemployment; they can solve the problems and ensure the world is not lagging in terms of economy (Bourdieu, 2014). The case of rising inequality is a significant problem that affects globalization, economic integration and also affects government donors. Therefore, EEOC aims at protecting the economy by ensuring there are no cases of inequality and if any exists they can be tackled before getting out of control. The goals set by the EEOC has assisted the targeted population because it has enabled the victims of discrimination to obtain justice and also know their rights. The Act has also resulted in gender equality in the workplace, and now there are more female employees almost the same number as men. This has improved the standards living of employees because more people are being employed because there is no discrimination of color or even nationality. This is because the act has outlined the rights of each employee and how they should be treated when at the place of work.

Ways in which goals set by the EEOC adversely affect the q...